What Post-Pandemic Educational Technology Research Do We Really Need?

Change display time — Currently: Central Daylight Time (CDT) (Event time)
Location: Room 383-5
Experience live:

Watch recording:

Listen and learn : Research paper
Lecture presentation

Research papers are a pairing of two 18 minute presentations followed by 18 minutes of Discussion led by a Discussant, with remaining time for Q & A.
This is presentation 1 of 2, scroll down to see more details.

Audience:	Chief technology officers/superintendents/school board members, Principals/head teachers, Teacher education/higher ed faculty
Attendee devices:	Devices not needed
Topic:	Innovative learning environments
Grade level:	PK-12
Subject area:	Higher education, Preservice teacher education
ISTE Standards:	For Educators: Learner Stay current with research that supports improved student learning outcomes, including findings from the learning sciences.

Proposal summary

Framework

Research incorporating educational technology has a long history of focusing primarily on technology as tools. Reeves and Lin (2020) have emphasized, “a major contributor to the paucity of practical guidance in...systematic reviews is that they are primarily focused on the “things” of our field such as wearable technologies and mobile devices rather than on the “problems” faced by teachers and students” (p.1998). Should research on educational technology focus on the "problems" as Reeves and Lin have emphasized?

Also, some researchers have critiqued the field for lacking theory (Hew, Lan, Tang, Jia, & Lo, 2019; Schad, Greene, & Jones, 2021) and viewing technology as a solution to education's shortcomings, also known as "techno-solutism" (Morozov, 2013). Another critique is that educators often fail to recognize the political nature of technology and its ability to benefit some while simultaneously harming others (Heath, Asim, Milman, Henderson, 2022a; 2022b). Others have also pointed out how injustice is inherent in the design of technologies (Benjamin, 2019; Buolamwini & Gebru, 2018; Costanza-Chock, 2020; Noble, 2018) ). Moreover, the influence of large technology companies on educational technology is also problematic (Krutka et al., 2021; Regan & Khwaja, 2019).

How do we reconcile these tensions? How should these realities be incorporated into educational research in K12 and post-secondary settings, including pre-service and inservice teacher and school leader preparation?research?

Methods

This is a very abbreviated literature review, highlighting some key findings to foster our discussion.

Results

I expect for this session to help identify some needed educational technology research areas that move beyond tools, incorporates theory, and acknowledges that technology is not always a solution, and in fact, it is not neutral and can stoke harm.

Importance

A great deal of educational technology research has been conducted prior to and during the pandemic. This is a good time to reflect on the past and present to think about what research is needed for the future.

References

Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code. Polity.
Benson, A.D., Joseph, R. & Moore, J.L. (Eds.). (2017). Culture, learning and technology: Research and practice. Routledge.
Boninger, F., Molnar, A., & Murray, K. (2017). Asleep at the switch: Schoolhouse commercialism, student privacy, and the failure of policymaking. National Education Policy Center. https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/publications/RB%20Trends%202017_2.pdf
Heath, M., Asim, S., Milman, N. B., Henderson, J. (2022a). In Symposium Presentation Educating techno-skeptics: Critical approaches to educational technology in a dystopian world. Symposium to be presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
Heath, M., Asim, S., Milman, N. B., Henderson, J. (2022b). What is just technology integration? Fostering change while reconciling reality. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
Hew, K. F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12770
Krutka, D. G., Smits, R. M., & Willhelm, T. A. (2021). Don’t be evil: Should we use Google in schools? TechTrends, 1-11.
Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. Public Affairs.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
Reeves, T., & Lin, L. (2020). The research we have is not the research we need. Education Technology Regan, P. M., & Khwaja, E. T. (2019). Mapping the political economy of education technology: A networks perspective. Policy Futures in Education, 17(8), 1000–1023. Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09811-3
Schad, M.L., Greene, M.D. & Jones, M. (2021). A Review of Theory, Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks in Educational Technology. International Journal on E-Learning, 20(2), 187-198. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 8, 2022 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/218631

More [+]

Presenters

Dr. Natalie Milman, George Washington University

Natalie B. Milman, Ph.D. is Chair of the Department of Educational Leadership, Professor of Educational Technology, and Director of the Educational Technology Leadership Program at George Washington University. She is also a member of the interdisciplinary Human-Technology Collaborations PhD program and research lab (go.gwu.edu/htc) and winner of the 2017 Bender Teaching Award. Her research focuses on the design of instruction and models for the effective leadership and integration of technology at all academic levels; online student support needs, engagement, and learning; issues of diversity, inclusion, and digital equity; and the use of digital portfolios for professional development.